The Court did not have a defined legal status until the Treaty of Maastricht when it was made the
fifth institution, the first new institution since the founding of
the Community. By becoming an institution it gained some new
powers, such as the ability to bring actions before the European Court of Justice
(ECJ). However its audit power related only to the European
Communitypillar of the EU,
but under the Treaty of
Amsterdam it gained the full power to audit finances of the
whole of the EU.[2]

Functions

Despite its name, the Court has no judicial functions. It is
rather a professional external investigatory audit agency.[3]
The primary role of the court is to externally check if the budget of the European
Union has been implemented correctly, in that EU funds have
been spent legally and with sound management. In doing so, the
court checks the paperwork of all persons handling any income or
expenditure of the Union and carries out spot checks. The court is
bound to report any problems in the Court's reports for the
attention of other states and institutions, these reports include
its general annual report as well as specific and special reports
on certain bodies and issues.[1][4]
The Court's decision is the basis for the European
Commission decisions, for example: when the Court found
problems in the management of EU funds in the regions of
England, the Commission suspended funds to those regions and
prepared to fine those who did not come back up to acceptable
standards.[5]

In this role the Court has to remain independent yet remain in
touch with the other institutions, for example a key role is the
presentation of the Court's annual report to the European
Parliament. It is based on this report that the Parliament
makes its decision on whether or not to sign off the European
Commission's handling of the budget for that year.[1]
The Parliament notably refused to do this in 1984 and 1999, the
latter case forced the resignation of the Santer
Commission.[6]
The Court, if satisfied, also sends assurances to the Council and
Parliament that the taxpayers money is being properly used[1]
and the Court must be consulted before the adoption of any
legislation with financial implications but the opinion is never
binding.[4]

Organisation

The Court is composed of one member from each EU state who are
appointed by the Council of the European
Union for a renewable term of six years.[1]
They are not all replaced every six years however as their terms to
not coincide (four of the original members began with reduced terms
of four years for this reason). Members are chosen from people who
have served in national audit bodies, who are qualified for the
office and whose independence is beyond doubt. While a serving in
the court, members can not engage in any other professional
actives.[7]
As the body is independent they are free to decide their own
organisation and rules of procedure, however they have to be
ratified by the Council of the European
Union.[8]
Since the Treaty of Nice, the Court can set up "chambers" (with
only a few Members each) to adopt certain types of reports or
opinions.[9]

The Court is supported by a staff of approximately 800 auditors,
translators and administrators. Auditors
are divided into auditor groups which inspect and prepare draft
reports for the Court to take decisions upon. Inspections take
place not only of EU institutions but any state which receives EU
funds given that 90% of income
and expenditure is managed by national
authorities rather than the EU. Upon finding a fault the Court has
no legal powers of its own and instead informs OLAF which is the EU's
anti-fraud agency.[1]
The court is also assisted by the Secretary-General
of the European Court of Auditors, elected by the court, who
draws up draft minutes and keeps archives of decisions as well as
ensures the publication of reports in the Official Journal of
the European Union along with general management and assistance
to the President.[10]

Advertisements

President

The members then elect one of their members as the President of
the Court for a renewable three year term. The election takes place
by a secret ballot of those members who applied for the presidency.
The duties of the President (which may be delegated) are to convene
and chair the meetings of the Court, ensuring that decisions are
implemented and the departments (and other activities) are soundly
managed. The president also represents the court and appoints a
representative for it in contentious proceedings.[10]

Criticism

Declaration of Assurance

Since 1994 the Court has been required to provide a "Declaration
of Assurance", essentially a certificate that an entire annual
budget can be accounted for. This has proved to be a problem, as
even relatively minor omissions require the Court to refuse a
declaration of assurance for the entire budget, even if almost all
of the budget is considered reliable.

This has led to media reports of the EU accounts being "riddled
with fraud", where issues are
based on errors in paperwork even though the underlying spending
was legal. The auditing system itself has drawn criticism from this
perception. The Commission in particular have stated that the bar
is too high, and that only 0.09% of the budget is subject to
fraud.[12]
The controversial dismissal in 2003 of Marta Andreasen for her criticism of
procedures in 2002 have underlined the arguments on both sides.

Countering this perception, the EU had to issue a press release
on 24 October 2006, contradicting the statement that: "Annual
accounts have not been certified by the external auditor since
1994"[13]: "Myths or facts – what do
you prefer?"[14][15]

Terry WynnMEP who served on the
Parliament's Committee on Budgetary
Control has also backed these calls stating that it is
impossible for the Commission to achieve these standards. By
comparison, the Auditor General for the
United Kingdom
stated that there were 500 separate accounts for the UK and "in the
last year, I qualified 13 of the 500. If I had to operate the EU
system, then, because I qualify 13 accounts, I might have to
qualify the whole British
central government expenditure". Despite the problems, the Barroso
Commission has stated that it aims to bring the budget within
the Court's limits by the end of its mandate in 2009.[12]

Size

The size of the court has also come under criticism. Based on
the one member per state system its members grew from nine to
twenty-seven as of 2007. Attempting to get consensus in the body has thus become more
difficult leading to the number of its special reports per year
shrinking from fifteen to six between 2003 and 2005 despite its
staff growing by 200 over the same period. Some proposals have been
for the size to be reduced to five members or just one, possibly
with an advisory board with members from each member state.
However, neither the European
Constitution nor the Lisbon Treaty
proposed any changes to this system despite calls to address it by
former court members and MEPs.[3][16]

The European Court of Auditors is the fifth institution of the European Union (EU). It was established in 1975 in Luxembourg to audit the accounts of EU institutions. The Court is composed of one member from each EU member state and its current president (as of 2008) is Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira.[1]

[[Template:FULLPAGENAME: Politics of the European Union|view]] • [[{{TALKPAGENAME:Template:FULLPAGENAME: Politics of the European Union}}|talk]] • [{{fullurl:Template:FULLPAGENAME: Politics of the European Union|action=edit}}edit]

The court did not have a defined legal status until the Treaty of Maastricht when it was made the fifth institution, the first new institution since the founding of the Community. By becoming an institution it gained some new powers, such as the ability to bring actions before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However its audit power related only to the European Communitypillar of the EU, but under the Treaty of Amsterdam it gained the full power to audit finances of the whole of the EU.[2]

Functions

Despite its name, the Court has no judicial functions. It is rather a professional external investigatory audit agency.[3] The primary role of the court is to externally check if the budget of the European Union has been implemented correctly, in that EU funds have been spent legally and with sound management. In doing so, the court checks the paperwork of all persons handling any income or expenditure of the Union and carries out spot checks. The court is bound to report any problems in the Courts reports for the attention of other states and institutions, these reports include its general annual report as well as specific and special reports on certain bodies and issues.[1][4] The Court's decision is the basis for the European Commission decisions, for example: when the Court found problems in the management of EU funds in the regions of England, the Commission suspended funds to those regions and prepared to fine those who did not come back up to acceptable standards.[5]

In this role the Court has to remain independent yet remain in touch with the other institutions, for example a key role is the presentation of the Court's annual report to the European Parliament. It is based on this report that the Parliament makes its decision on whether or not to sign off the European Commission's handling of the budget for that year.[1] The Parliament notably refused to do this in 1984 and 1999, the latter case forced the resignation of the Santer Commission.[6] The Court, if satisfied, also sends assurances to the Council and Parliament that the taxpayers money is being properly used[1] and the Court must be consulted before the adoption of any legislation with financial implications but the opinion is never binding.[4]

Organization

The Court is composed of one member from each EU state who are appointed by the Council of the European Union for a renewable term of six years.[1] They are not all replaced every six years however as their terms to not coincide (four of the original members began with reduced terms of four years for this reason). Members are chosen from people who have served in national audit bodies, who are qualified for the office and whose independence is beyond doubt. While a serving in the court, members can not engage in any other professional actives.[7] As the body is independent they are free to decide their own organisation and rules of procedure, however they have to be ratified by the Council of the European Union.[8] Since the Treaty of Nice, the Court can set up "chambers" (with only a few Members each) to adopt certain types of reports or opinions.[9]

The Court is supported by a staff of approximately 800 auditors, translators and administrators. Auditors are divided into auditor groups which inspect and prepare draft reports for the Court to take decisions upon. Inspections take place not only of EU institutions but any state which receives EU funds given that 90% of income and expenditure is managed by national authorities rather than the EU. Upon finding a fault the Court has no legal powers of its own and instead informs OLAF which is the EU's anti-fraud agency.[1] The court is also assisted by the Secretary-General of the European Court of Auditors, elected by the court, who draws up draft minutes and keeps archives of decisions as well as ensures the publication of reports in the Official Journal of the European Union along with general management and assistance to the President.[10]

President

The members then elect one of their members as the President of the Court for a renewable three year term. The election takes place by a secret ballot of those members who applied for the presidency. The duties of the President (which may be delegated) are to convene and chair the meetings of the Court, ensuring that decisions are implemented and the departments (and other activities) and soundly managed. The president also represents the court and appoints a representative for it in contentious proceedings.[10]

Criticism

This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (February 2009)

This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Declaration of assurance

Since 1994 the Court has been required to provide a "declaration of assurance" (Cf. positive assurance). This has proved to be a problem as even relatively minor problems force the Court to refuse a declaration of assurance for the entire budget, thereby refusing to endorse large parts of the budget despite declaring these accounts to be "reliable". This has led to media reports of the EU accounts being "riddled with fraud" where as the problems centre more on errors in paperwork despite correct spending. Hence the system has drawn criticism due to creating this perception. The Commission in particular have stated that the bar is too high and that only 0.09% of the budget is subject to fraud.[12]

The EU had to issue a press release on 2006-10-24, to answer to the falsehood that "Annual accounts have not been certified by the external auditor since 1994"[13]: "Myths or facts – what do you prefer?"[14][15]

Terry WynnMEP who served on the Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control has also backed these calls stating that it is impossible for the Commission to fall within these standards. By comparison, the Auditor General for the United Kingdom stated that there were 500 separate accounts for the UK and "in the last year, I qualified 13 of the 500. If I had to operate the EU system, then, because I qualify 13 accounts, I might have to qualify the whole British central government expenditure". Despite the problems, the Barroso Commission has stated that it aims to bring the budget within the Court's limits by the end of its mandate in 2009.[12]

Size

The size of the court has also come under criticism. Based on the one member per state system its members grew from nine to twenty-seven as of 2007. Attempting to get consensus in the body has thus become more difficult leading to the number of its special reports per year shrinking from fifteen to six between 2003 and 2005 despite its staff growing by 200 over the same period. Some proposals have been for the size to be reduced to five members or just one, possibly with an advisory board with members from each member state. However, neither the European Constitution nor the Lisbon Treaty proposed any changes to this system despite calls to address it by former court members and MEPs.[16][3]